White House Briefing by Judith McHale

The text of Judith McHale's briefing to the White House Press Corps follows. I would have liked to have seen just a little more background knowledge on the history of public diplomacy by the Under Secretary and a lot more specific knowledge--like the budget for PD! --but the initiative to appear before the WH press was a good one. Much of what is mentioned here is new wine in old bottles, of course. The truest thing she said was: "What made all this work were ambassadors and a corps of professional foreign service officers and locally engaged staff at embassies and consulates overseas. They provided the ideas and advice we needed to bridge our electronic efforts here with real live people overseas. And they carried out the face-to-face personal engagement that will always be the heart of successful public diplomacy."

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release July 15, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
AND UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY JUDITH McHALE

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

3:27 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon, folks. Before we get started with our regularly scheduled program, I want to bring to you guys a special guest, Judith McHale, who is Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, to discuss some of the efforts that we undertook to highlight the President's speech in Ghana throughout the continent of Africa -- a successful effort that she and her team worked closely on with members of the White House, including our media guys, Macon Phillips and Katie Stanton.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Thank you, Robert. I'm delighted to be here with all of you today to talk about some of the exciting new initiatives that we're starting at the State Department.

As President Obama visited Ghana last weekend, U.S. ambassadors and State Department Public Diplomacy personnel created unprecedented engagement with people in Africa and around the world. We worked under the leadership of the White House and built on our initial experiments in new media global outreach at the time of the President's Cairo and Moscow speeches. We interacted directly with hundreds of thousands of people, helped the President to engage tens of millions, and showed the world that America listens and wants to engage.

This was a model of creative public diplomacy for the 21st century. I believe that it is embodied in what Secretary Clinton calls "smart power." We broke new ground in using technology to engage nontraditional audiences. The centerpiece was a creative White House initiative that bridged new media and old. Macon Phillips, Katie Stanton, and others at the White House Office of New Media should take a bow, as should the entire State Department team.

Before the speech, we set up an SMS, or texting service, throughout Africa and invited people to text the President in either English or French. Nearly 16,000 did so, from 87 countries in Africa and beyond. Our embassy in South Africa partnered with a mobile-based social networking site and garnered an additional 200,000 questions and comments from throughout the continent.

And as the President spoke on Saturday, we sent simultaneous SMS highlights of the speech to over 12,000 people in some 80 countries in French and English, and solicited their feedback via text message. We posted hundreds of those messages on America.gov, the State Department's Public Diplomacy Web site, and on whitehouse.gov.

In return, the President answered questions selected from this massive influx by three African journalists in a podcast that we dubbed into French, Swahili, Portuguese and Arabic, in addition to the original English. On the screens here behind me, I believe, you can see a visual representation of the words the President used in his speech and of the words used by those who texted him. We'll also show you what the questions looked like on the White House Web site.

So you can see this came out of the President's feed, and then the responses -- and you can see by the sort of prominence of the words, those which resonated with the community, obviously "Obama" being a huge one, but all the things -- and you can see -- if you focused on it, you see some of the concepts that came throughout his speech.

Next slide. Then what we did, because we wanted to continue this community, was a map of the world with comments popping up where they came so others could check in and could see how they were doing.

What made all this work were ambassadors and a corps of professional foreign service officers and locally engaged staff at embassies and consulates overseas. They provided the ideas and advice we needed to bridge our electronic efforts here with real live people overseas. And they carried out the face-to-face personal engagement that will always be the heart of successful public diplomacy.

Our overseas teams worked with local media to enable them to broadcast the President's speech and report on his trip to Ghana. They invited audiences to ambassadorial residences, cultural centers and movie theaters to view and discuss the speech. Ambassadors and public affairs officers led panel discussions and spoke to local and regional media to amplify the President's themes.

Here are just a few examples. Our embassy in Freetown gave micro-grants to dozens of cinema centers throughout Sierra Leone that showed the speech live, free of charge, to all comers, reaching thousands in even far-flung corners of the country.

Our Mission to the African Union in Addis Ababa invited 200 representatives of 53 African countries to a speech screening and discussion. In this hemisphere, in the Dominican Republic, our embassy hosted a screening of the speech with Spanish subtitles for university students and conducted a discussion afterwards. In Canada, our embassy and consulates actively reached out to the Afro-Canadian groups throughout the country.

Audience response, both in person and online, was overwhelmingly positive. Embassy anecdotes and SMS messages alike show that the President's speech and our efforts to help him engage with people struck a chord.

In Niger, which is currently going through a constitutional crisis, audience members at the embassy screening stood up during the speech and cried out, "He speaks for us." A young South African texted, "President Obama, I'm 20 years old, can't believe that we've actually been given this opportunity. Thank you." A Zimbabwean who had fled that country to Mozambique texted, "Thank you, sir, for that uplifting speech." He went on to say, "I will stay and contribute to the democratic reforms in my country of Zimbabwe."

I think that the enthusiasm of Africans, especially young people, to use technology to engage with us shows the very potential and promise of the continent that the President stressed in his speech. Africans are as technologically capable and eager for connections with the world as any people on Earth.

I'm proud that the State Department could partner with the White House to help the President build a conversation with citizens in Africa and beyond, creating and sustaining the kind of global dialogue that, as Secretary Clinton said today in her speech, makes America a smarter and stronger nation.

Thank you very much.

Q How are you going to keep using this list? If you have 16,000 phone numbers now, what are they going to be getting?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Well, it's actually not 16,000. It is about 250,000 e-mail addresses that we have. And one of the things that I'm very committed to, and I think it's critical to do it, is to have an ongoing involvement with them. So we're developing a variety of ways to reach out and continue that discussion.

We received several -- I think about 100,000 different comments and questions going through those -- some of them we're posting online. And we're going to continue to identify, when you looked at that analysis of the words that were used, we can begin to see communities which are groupings. So if we identify individuals who are -- we're going to be building communities around themes -- those who are interested in the topic of democracy, we would set up discussion forums for them to be able to participate in education and other things. So we're continuing to do that, because, to me, that's a critical component of what we're trying to do, is to build these networks and continue to sustain them by providing them information about topics that they're interested in.

MR. GIBBS: Margaret.

Q Do you know whether past administrations have had databases of non-Americans, of foreigners, to use for diplomatic purposes and how they were collected?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: I don't know. Sorry, I don't have an answer.

Q You mentioned engaging with tens of millions of people. Can you just go over that math?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: How did we do it? Well, online we had about 250,000. But in Africa, it was a great sort of matching of new and old technologies, so one of the things we did -- obviously, the feed went out live and was carried by television networks throughout Africa. But radio is such a predominant -- it is one of the predominant media still in Africa, so what we did -- the speech went out live, but we also did this podcast. So when we received the 250,000 questions that came in, we had three African journalists who went through about 100,000 of those questions, I believe, to sort them out -- came up with a number of questions for the President to answer.

We submitted them to the President. He answered them on a podcast, which was recorded. The podcast was both downloaded online, but it was also transmitted -- in many cases by bicycle, frankly -- to radio stations and broadcast on radio stations.

So we've been aggregating the data of all the outlets that we reached, and we're in the process of continuing to refine that. But basically, it was the combined reach of online -- of traditional media -- radio, television -- and online.

Q Adds up to tens of millions?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Yes, absolutely.

Q Did you coordinate the effort with the local governments? Do you think this coordination is needed?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: I think we -- I'm not exactly certain of the answers to whether we did it, but we were able to certainly work with our posts, and I think where it was appropriate and they felt like they wanted to do that, they did. I know that there were many government officials who were invited to the embassy viewing events. So certainly they knew about it and there was a lot of support for our efforts. There was not any resistance that I know of -- so, yes.

Q Do you have any feedback from the governments in the region?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: I have not heard anything specifically myself.

Q Can you tell us anything about the State Department's efforts to disseminate his speech in Moscow, since that was --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Certainly.

Q -- not broadcast widely live?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: That's correct. One of the things that we're looking at, and I think it's an important point, is that each of these events that we want to do we want to tailor it specifically for the event. In the case of Moscow, we did have public diplomacy outreach, but it was more regional. Given the nature of the speech, we felt it was more appropriate to be a regional outreach, and so we did a variety of things.

We had a texting initiative that we did around the Moscow speech. We also have developed a Facebook community and following, which is really interesting, because we launched it following up on Cairo, and we found the group migrated with us to Moscow and is continuing to grow. It grew about 25 percent with the Africa initiative. So Facebook became a key component -- but also understanding what were the tools that the individuals in that region were using, which was somewhat different. And so we had a presence on the applicable tools there. And we're going to continue to do that.

Q Regionally, are you talking about Russia, former Soviet Union, or even wider than that?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: It was primarily Russia and some of the adjacent countries is where we went to for the Moscow speech.

MR. GIBBS: Mark.

Q What was the amount of the micro grant to the movie theaters to show the speech, do you know?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: No, I don't know. I know it was not a lot of money. But they basically -- I thought it was a very innovative approach, where they basically went out and contracted with cinemas for people to go for free. But I don't believe it was a significant amount of money. When they call it "micro grant," I'm taking them at their word.

Q What's your operation's budget?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Our total budget for this initiative?

Q No, for --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: For public diplomacy?

Q Right.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: You know, I'm relatively new to my job, so can I answer that in a couple more weeks? (Laughter.)

Q Just to follow up on Jonathan's question, should we assume that if the -- I mean, what was the number of outreach in Russia? I mean, you're here to talk about all the great outreach you did with the Africa speech. It does -- does it seem that the outreach didn't -- wasn't as effective?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: No, I think it was very effective in the --

Q How do you know, measure-wise? Do you have the numbers?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: I don't have the specific numbers with me, but what we are doing is analyzing what were the targeted audience that we were trying to reach within the region, and understanding -- I mean, in Moscow, we were basically using new media. So it was not a television/radio kind of outreach effort. I don't think we have the numbers. Do you have the numbers for -- I don't have them with me.

Q I mean, just a --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: We're checking --

Q We got a public briefing on Cairo, a pre-briefing on --but we have not gotten a big briefing on the Moscow --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: My guess would be we're talking in the thousands for that.

MR. GIBBS: They tend to be a little skeptical. (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Oh, you tend to be a little skeptical? (Laughter.)

Q -- between the lines of information, information, no information.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: You know what, we can get you that information. But I would tell you that the answer is in the thousands, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands, just given the nature of what we were trying to do there.

Q Is the goal here to create a global database of foreign citizens around the world from different regions to poll together? And if so, what do you intend, or what do you anticipate doing in terms of reaching out to them in the months and years ahead? And what will you be sending to these people? What's the strategy?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: The strategy is one which I think is very consistent with the President's strategy and the strategy of the Secretary of State, which is to actually reach out to reengage, if you will, and connect with citizens all over the world; to listen to them, to understand what is on their minds so that as we sort of move forward together to face all the challenges that we're facing, we have the basis of a conversation and dialogue.

So that is, frankly, the basis of what we're trying to do. The follow-up for it, and the strategy -- because a key part, as I said earlier, is to keep them engaged -- is to continue to provide content and information which is of value to them, things which they want to receive, information which they are seeking, and engage them in that dialogue. There's so many issues that I think face us collectively and the challenges that face us, so we're going to be a stronger --

Q -- do that around the world.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: We are doing that around the world. That is correct. That is the challenge.

Q Just a quick question. How do you guard against only reaching the elites if you're using these new media methods?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Well, we're not just using new media. One of the points that I wanted to make in the Africa situation is that new media will work in certain places, but it's a tool, not a strategy. And I believe that quite passionately. And so we're going to use it where appropriate to reach certain targeted demographics. But, frankly, in the case of Africa, we had free cinemas, we had radio outreach. We understand -- we know very well that throughout Africa, radio is the predominant media.

And so we were very careful to be sure that the speech was accessible to the largest population by understanding what is the media infrastructure in each country. And it's one of the strengths of the embassies, is that they understand that and they report it to us, and we tailor each of these initiatives to the available infrastructure.

So it's designed to reach sort of less-affluent populations. It is designed to reach deep into these countries. And I think if you got to read some of the questions, you would be pretty amazed at the reactions that we got and the feedback that we got from our embassies. It reached very, very deep into these areas.

Q How did that work with radio?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: How did it work with radio?

Q Yes.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Well, two things: One, the speech went out live. Secondly, we had a podcast, so people had sent in questions; the President answered questions. We downloaded the podcast. The embassies actually transferred it to a disk and bicycled it to local radio stations throughout Africa. I mean, that's literally the way it was done. And it is continuing to play now. So it has gotten multiple plays, and it's continuing to play.

Q How did you kind of assess the Cairo effort now that there's been some time between? Are you -- you said you wanted to kind of continue the dialogue --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Right.

Q Is that continuing? And then are we going to get copies of the slides you showed?

MR. GIBBS: We can get you copies of those.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Each of these -- we're learning more and more as we do them, which is sort of the fun thing about doing it. And compared to -- Cairo was the global initiative. This one was probably -- had a slightly different focus; it was primarily Africa and throughout Europe where we saw the African diaspora. So it was slightly -- we had a slightly different initiative to it. And we're learning on each and every case.

But the key for me is, as we go through this, A, to learn, to be sure that we get better at what we're doing and constantly evolving it, and we've got great folks helping us out in doing that; and secondly, to be sure that we don't just -- this is not just a one-off with these folks, so that when they come in -- they sort of come to engage with us, that we continue to follow up.

And so we have a number of programs in place that we're going to continue to do that. Our technology infrastructure is constantly evolving so that we're able to continue that engagement because, to me, that's the absolute critical thing that we're going to have to do.

Q What I was getting at is, are you still getting people engaging on the Cairo speech?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Yes, absolutely. And because -- but that's an effort on our part to do that, to reach out, to sort of provide them with the information and subjects that they want to engage on. But it is absolutely a key part of what we're doing. So we've developed discussion rooms that they can join, and we're trying to sort of understand the things that they're interested in and be sure that we actually are responding to that to keep them alive. And we're going to keep that discussion going.

And the other thing that we want to do is to inject new content into that conversation, so if we see they're interested in energy or the environment, bringing in experts who could help facilitate that conversation.

Q Is this series of speeches to be continued? Like an obvious geographic gap is China and Asia in general.

MR. GIBBS: Well, we'll be there soon enough. (Laughter.)

Q My question, is there a comparable effort here in the United States -- maybe it's a question for you, Robert -- and if so, who's in charge of it? Who's building the domestic database?

MR. GIBBS: Well, there are people that obviously e-mail questions to the White House Web site, sign up for e-mail alerts, are notified of goings-on of the administration, initiatives, recovery plan, things like that. There's a -- I mentioned Macon Phillips and Katie Stanton, who are on our new media team, who help obviously not only domestically, but also internationally, in reaching out in order to let people know what we're doing.

Q Do we know how big that base has built up to?

MR. GIBBS: Several million from the last time I checked. I don't have an exact number. But the amount of traffic that we have gotten -- and I have some better slides on this back in the office -- we've seen an exponential jump in the amount of traffic overall, since the inauguration, of people seeking information. And obviously, if you look at the Web site that has been revamped, we did it in a way that we hoped was user-friendly, that we could drive as many people as had questions about stuff that was going on to a very user-friendly site.

Q Would we be concerned if a foreign government were collecting e-mail addresses of Americans and hoping to keep them engaged in the future?

MR. GIBBS: It's probably no more different than to sign up for e-mail updates at rollcall.com.

Q Well, that's a smart answer, but you want to answer the question? It's clever, but is there any concern --

MR. GIBBS: No, it's both smart and a factual answer.

Q Well, is there any concern that a foreign government -- setting this precedent of foreign governments collecting e-mail addresses of citizens of, say, this country, and then keeping them informed in their own way about what they're doing?

MR. GIBBS: If somebody e-mails the government of South Africa and has a question about their policies, and that Web-site has the ability for somebody to sign up for continual updates in order to get engaged, I'll let each of the 300-or-so-million people in this country that seek information from that to do so voluntarily. Nobody is being forced to give out their e-mail addresses. And obviously, the President is deeply concerned about cyber-security and keeping privacy concerns, as they are at rollcall, very protective.

Yes, sir.

Q On Afghanistan, how do you plan to engage public diplomacy in Afghanistan and Pakistan --

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question.

Q In Afghanistan and Pakistan, how do you plan to use public diplomacy to win over the people?

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Well, in every country in the world, we have a pretty active public diplomacy program and plan. And in both of those countries, which I've been sort of looking at quite intensely recently, we have a number of public diplomacy initiatives in each of those countries, appropriate to the country. So, for example, in Pakistan, we have, as you probably know, a very robust exchange program. We have more Fulbright students coming from Pakistan than anywhere else in the world. We have high school students coming over from Pakistan. So there are a number of initiatives that we will continue to do that.

Same thing in Afghanistan, where a lot of our efforts are focused on building Afghan capacity to sort of deal in a lot of different areas. So we have very aggressive plans and programs in both of those countries, and we have public diplomacy initiatives in every country in the world.

MR. GIBBS: All right, thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY McHALE: Okay, thank you.

Who's In Charge?

This news story seems to imply that the Pentagon has not lost its taste for running public diplomacy with the change of administrations.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4190904&c=AME&s=TOP

Len Baldyga's take on PD

The attached is Leonard J. Baldyga's speech at the recent Murrow Conference at Tuft's Flectcher School. It makes some very good points worth reflecting upon and perhaps even acting upon!

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-3/Baldyga.pdf

This is Cultural Diplomacy for the 21st Century

ON THE ROAD TO BURMA
Globetrotting with Ozomatli, unlikely U.S. diplomats
BY RANDALL ROBERTS
Ozomatli: ( Jiro Yamaguchi, Wil-Dog Abers, Justin Porée, Raúl Pacheco, Mario Calire, Asdru Sierra, Ulises Bella
Eduardo Mackinlay
The Ozomatli posse: Logging frequent-flier miles, courtesy of the U.S. government

Four days into a five-day tour of Rangoon, Burma, we thought we’d had our fill of weirdness. But after Ozomatli are led through Kawechan School for the Blind’s darkened hallways and up a flight of stairs, the sound of a flailing guitar solo and the thump of a bass drum punch through the corridor. Around a corner, standing on a stage, four conservatively dressed men wearing sunglasses and matching pink-and-blue polo-type shirts are banging out a rock song. They look like a ’60s surf band, the Ventures or something — square and stiff.

Ozomatli, a band born in Los Angeles in 1996, are scheduled to perform a few songs for students, orphans and disabled kids as part of an outreach program arranged by the U.S. Department of State. They didn’t count on any competition, and they watch from the side as a band called Blind Reality, facing 100 people of varying degrees of disability, creates a chaotic, freakazoid sound that only four sightless rock dudes living in the pocket of one of the world’s most beaten-down countries could possibly make.

See the full story at: http://www.laweekly.com/2009-06-25/music/music-without-borders/

Just Words?

Judith McHale, the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, delivered an address in Washington recently talking about the role of public diplomacy. You can read the full text of the "as delivered" transcript here.

As speeches go it was a well written and coherent presentation on a subject of keen interest to some and not much interest to many. Good intentions and good words can go only so far however, as we have seen in other contexts of late. It has become fashionable to say "global engagement" when one means "public diplomacy" or "strategic communications" or perhaps half a dozen other buzz words. But saying global engagement doesn't mean doing global engagement any more than saying public diplomacy means doing public diplomacy. The time for words joined with action is upon us. And, so far at least, it is the Congress and not the Administration that is putting action behind words.

How so you say? Well Senator Lugar's S.49 is one example but a more striking one is the report of the first authorization bill for the State Department in years. Yes, there are appropriation bills most every year except of course when Congress gets gridlocked; but authorization, now that is another story. Congress is usually reluctant to open up that can of worms so instead of re-authorizing it merely appropriates funds. The House passed HR 2410, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011,"To authorize appropriations for the Department of State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to modernize the Foreign Service, to authorize democratic, economic, and social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize security assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes." There are some things in this authorization that are laudable, some less so but we shall have to wait until the Senate and reconciliation are finished to see what really emerges. Frankly a more dramatic change is needed than anything called for so far in the legislation. You can read HR 2410 here.

No Preconceptions

The New Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale Comes On Board with No Preconceptions About PD's Structure.

In a recent interview with VOA she had that to say about the future of PD's structure in the State Department. I welcome that willingness to look anew at the PD structure within State without any preconceptions. If Ms. McHale is as smart as her resume indicates then she will soon see how changes must be made to make PD and her role leading it more effective. Let's wait and see...

This is the text of the VOA News Story:

Public Diplomacy Chief Predicts Turnaround in US Standing Abroad
By David Gollust
Washington
27 May 2009


The U.S. State Department's new public diplomacy chief says she's confident America's image abroad can be rebuilt after sagging badly during the Bush administration. Former media executive Judith McHale spoke in an interview with VOA on her first full day as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy.

McHale is not predicting a miraculous rebound in America's standing abroad, which opinion polls suggest hit historic lows under the past administration, whose foreign policy was perceived as unilateralist and overly militarized.

However, the new undersecretary does say the Obama administration has already made some headway in restoring the U.S. global image, starting with the election and inauguration of the new president, who has family ties to Kenya and spent formative years in Indonesia.

"His election clearly helped our image in the world in a number of ways. Certainly his roots in Africa, the time that he lived in Indonesia. He and I actually had a conversation about the fact we both lived overseas when we were younger. I think that does give you a different world-view. So yes, I think the world right now is very willing to re-engage with the country. He, in his inauguration, made an important point of talking about reaching out his hand and I think there are lots of people who want to reach out to us now," she said.

McHale said the president's June 4 policy address in Cairo, in which he is expected to urge reconciliation with Muslim states, will be a critically important event in U.S. public diplomacy and an effort to reach out to those countries as partners.

McHale, who for 20 years headed the cable TV combine Discovery Communications, said she developed her interest in foreign and particularly African affairs as the daughter of a U.S. diplomat in apartheid-era South Africa.

She spent much of the last two years traveling in Africa to launch a mutual fund specializing in investments in African companies, and as such said she rejects the notion that her lack of traditional foreign policy experience will be a liability in her new job.

McHale, whose company operated in some 170 countries around the world, said the key to America reaching foreign populations and particularly youthful audiences is through new media - not only cable television but cellular communications and Internet social networking.

"We have to understand what's working. What are the things that are most relevant to help us reach and connect with billions of people around the world. There's no other way of doing that unless we employ new media in appropriate circumstances. When you look at the demographics of all the regions that we're trying to reach and you see that in many cases where the population is under 25 or under 20 and you have a younger demographic, they rely and use new technologies increasingly around the world," she said.

McHale oversees a $1 billion a year array of State Department communications, cultural, educational and exchange programs.

She promised a top-to-bottom review of U.S. public diplomacy efforts but said she enters the post with no preconceived notions about structural changes, though there are abundant study-commission reform recommendations.

My PD Blog: A Nostalgic Visit

My PD Blog: A Nostalgic Visit

A Nostalgic Visit

We recently made an all-too-short visit to Prague. it was our first trip there in nearly 10 years, over twenty years since we lived there (1983-1986) and it was nearly 40 years since our first visit there in August 1969. We saw a number of old and dear friends and missed others. We will stay longer next time! It was a nostalgic visit and one which restored our hope in the future of Prague and Central Europe.

There were many poignant moments, perhaps none quite so as this surprise visit to a monument arranged by Jazz Section leader Karel Srp.



The plaque (seen above) commemorates the planting of trees in the 1980s by several visiting writers to Prague (Kurt Vonnegut, John Updike, Gordon Skilling) and lists Jazz Section supporters at the Embassy in Prague, including the author of this blog and John Brown, Madeleine Albright, Wendy Luers and Sam Westgate. The trees--like the Jazz Section--and Democracy in Prague-- are still alive and thriving despite changes and the pace of history.

One step taken, more to come

The two pieces of legislation I wrote about earlier have passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--an important step but the legislation has more hurdles to jump so let's continue to be supportive of this important public diplomacy legislation. Senator Lugar's May 5, 2009 release on the passage is reprinted below.

As yet to be introduced is the kind of legislation that will mark a major change in American Public Diplomacy. This would be a agency for Public Diplomacy within the State Department which could centralize authority over personnel and financial resources in a single place. I've written about this in earlier posts and I was delighted to see Tom Pickering support this concept at a recent CSIS symposium. [ Ambassador Thomas Pickering argued persuasively for a “stand alone agency within the State Department” for public diplomacy. He said that such a structure would keep public diplomacy closely engaged with policymakers and allow the United States to develop and maintain a corps of experienced public diplomacy professionals. "Smart Power in the Obama Administration: The Role of International Education and Exchange", May 6, 2009 ].

Science Envoy, Public Diplomacy Bills Clear Committee

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today unanimously passed S.838, U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar’s bill establishing “United States Science Envoys.” The bill would highlight our nation’s commitment to scientific research and education, as well as our willingness to collaborate with other countries to promote advancements in these fields throughout the world. Science Envoys will serve not only as good-will ambassadors, but help reinforce links between U.S. academic and scientific institutions and their international counterparts.

The United States has produced more Nobel Laureates than any other nation in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine and Economics. Recognition of U.S. expertise in these fields is reflected in consistent international opinion polls that show even those nations that disagree with the United States on certain foreign policy issues, admire the United States for our leadership in education, science and technology.

Scientific cooperation served as a means to engage with the Soviet Union throughout the 1970s and 80s and with the People’s Republic of China before official diplomatic ties were fully established.

Lugar’s legislation establishes the Science Envoy program and directs that it be run by the Department of State through its Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Envoys will be selected by the Secretary of State.

Lugar’s S. Res. 49, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of public diplomacy, also passed the Committee. It calls for the Secretary of State to initiate a reexamination of the public diplomacy platform strategy of the United States with a goal of reestablishing publicly accessible American Centers, and consider placing United States public diplomacy facilities at locations conducive to maximizing their use, consistent with the authority given to the Secretary in the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act.

For more information on S. Res. 49, visit http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/diplomacy.html.

Dick Lugar is the Lone Ranger

Nick Cull recently wrote about "Dick Lugar to the Rescue" concerning the Indiana Senator's two excellent pieces of legislation S.R. 49 (on the recreation of American Cultural Centers--about which I wrote in an earlier post) and S.R. 838 on the creation of Science Attaches (which I haven't yet discussed). Nick covered the territory pretty well but I cannot resist a few comments of my own on this legislation.

As I noted, I have already commented favorably in S.R. 49, so it is time to address the second of these pieces of legislation because it is likely to come up for a vote soon. It is yet another inspired idea from the Senator who would have made a great Secretary of State if he could be convinced to leave the Senate where even in the minority he has a good deal of influence.

Science attaches of the past were essentially travel agents for members of the U.S. scientific community abroad because while they ostensibly served in the Office of Science and Technology in the State Department where, as FS generalists who would not know an amoeba from an electron, worked mainly to smooth the travel of scientists from the National Academy of Science and a host of other agencies to international scientific conferences and the like. Perhaps it made good cover for intelligence professionals but it did little to serve either science or diplomacy. Thanks to Senator Lugar's sagacity, by placing the new science attaches in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs they now have a home that fits the purpose ---scientific and technical exchanges. S&T exchanges--like arts exchanges, or indeed any educational exchange have a vital purpose--the same purpose--mutual understanding. So it makes eminent good sense to lodge this function with the folks who do an outstanding job in all of the other exchanges of persons programs that they handle from youth exchanges to Fulbright professors, from professional exchanges like the IV Program to university to university exchanges-- all in the interest of mutual understanding.

The only down side of this story is that Dick Lugar, like that other fellow who came to the rescue, is the "Lone Ranger" it seems. Where are the other 99 (well 98 pending Minnesota) Senators--where are their ideas to rescue American public diplomacy from its current moribund state? The Obama Administration is woefully slow off the starting blocks on Public Diplomacy so perhaps the Legislative Branch can step in, as Senator Lugar has done, to fill in the blanks and come up with some creative ideas.

Finally...

Well at last it has happened. The Obama Administration has finally nominated the long-rumored favorite for the post of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale.

The White House put out this release:

Judith A. McHale, Nominee for Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Department of State

Ms. McHale is a leading media and communications executive whose career has been devoted to building companies and non-profit organizations dedicated to reaching out to and connecting people around the world. She is the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Discovery Communications. From 1987 to 2006, McHale helped build the parent company of the Discovery Channel into one of the world's most extensive media enterprises, with more than 100 channels telecast in over 170 countries and 35 languages to more than 1 billion subscribers. In the 1990s, McHale launched the non-profit Discovery Channel Global Education Partnership, which supplies free educational video programming to more than half a million students across Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. After two decades at Discovery, McHale extended her commitment to helping build opportunity for people in Africa. With the Global Environment Fund, a private equity firm, she worked to launch the GEF/Africa Growth Fund, an investment vehicle intending to focus on supplying expansion capital to small and medium-sized businesses that provide consumer goods and services in emerging African markets. McHale's commitment to global outreach efforts also includes her service on the boards of the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the National Democratic Institute, and Vital Voices. She previously served on the board of Africare. The daughter of a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, McHale was born in New York City and grew up in Britain and apartheid-era South Africa. Before joining Discovery, McHale served as General Counsel for MTV Networks and helped guide the company's international expansion.

Well, I wish Ms. McHale the best of luck in her new position, assuming of course that she is confirmed by the Senate. There is no doubt that she is a talented and experienced person, with a strong background in media and development.  But her qualifications are not the determining factor in a successful term as Under Secretary.

Previous PD Under Secretaries (known as "R" in Foggy Bottom) were no less talented or experienced in their own ways.  But each of them was stymied by the organizational box into which they were thrust.  No matter their good intentions or their connections to power, they each failed to accomplish anything of real substance because they were given a job with great responsibility but without much real authority.   You see, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has no line authority over the hundreds of public diplomacy officers and locally engaged staff at the Embassies and Consulates around the world that actually engage in public diplomacy.  Nor has the position any real authority over the funds that are spent for public diplomacy abroad. 

At best, the job can be said to be a member of "the corporate board" of the State Department with some limited power over two bureaus at State (IIP-International Information Programs and ECA-Educational and Cultural Affairs), the third Bureau under "R", PA-Public Affairs has rarely paid much attention to the Under Secretary and, if rumor is correct, the Office of the Spokesman--the most important and visible part of PA -- will be assigned directly to Secretary Clinton's office in the near future. This is a logical and sensible move which only recognizes the reality that PA works for the Secretary's image domestically; not the U.S. image abroad.   If Ms. McHale is to be successful, she will have to convince Secretary Clinton that the Department and the Secretary herself will be best served if "R" is given a far more independent and direct role in the conduct of public diplomacy by bringing all personnel and financial resources devoted to public diplomacy under her authority.   If PD were given the same level of cohesiveness and autonomy within State that USAID now enjoys, there is a chance that Judith McHale will go down in history as the most successful Under Secretary for PD and PA.   If not, she will likely join the ranks of the previous five Under Secretaries who expended their time and talent in a fruitless quest for an impossible dream.

S. 49 Finally some common sense legislation on PD

I urge you to read this and if you agree, contact your Senators and anyone else who will listen and gather support for this legislation. Of course it is only a start. And the next step must be to put the pieces of Public Diplomacy back together again, either as a separate entity under the Secretary of State similar to USAID today or as an independent agency. The latter may be a couple of years away but the former can be done legislatively very easily and at NO repeat NO additional cost to the tax payer.

Here is S. 49: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:sr49is.txt.pdf

Good Ideas Sometimes Come in Unexpected Places

I just came across this article in the on-line edition of The American Interest and I wanted to share the relevant excepts about public diplomacy with this Blog's readers. Of course the article is brilliant mainly because it mirrors the thrust of my own opinions (see Humpty Dumpty Redux etc.) but doesn't have the burden of being written by an ex-USIA officer and public diplomacy professional.

Here it is:
Excerpt from: http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=536&MId=23

The American Interest On Line

Nation-Building in America

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

HOW TO CHANGE AMERICA


William A. Galston

(Begin excepts)
Deconsolidation. Other institutional changes President Obama could adopt are less momentous but could still significantly improve government performance at modest cost. Reversing unsuccessful consolidations would be a good place to start.
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, Congress and the Bush Administration cast a wide net. Indeed, they cast it too wide—much wider than suggested by the initial expert proposals for a such a Department. Including the Federal Emergency Management Agency in DHS, for example, made more sense in bureaucratic flow charts than in the real world. To be sure, FEMA has raised its game since the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. But as long as this agency remains buried in a department whose principle mission is fighting terrorism, it will not command top-quality management or adequate resources. As the Kennedy School’s Elaine Kamarck has argued, the best and simplest remedy is to restore the status quo ante—namely, an independent FEMA, an arrangement which performed well during the Clinton Administration.
Our nation’s public diplomacy institutions mark another instance of a failed consolidation. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued last year that, in waging and winning the Cold War, institutions mattered as much as people and policies. In the wake of the Cold War, we weakened not only our military and intelligence capabilities, but also the institutions of “soft power” that enabled us to communicate effectively with other parts of the world. The fault was bipartisan. During the 1990s, arch-conservative Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) applied relentless pressure to abolish the U.S. Information Agency. He found partners in two successive Secretaries of State interested in bringing public diplomacy under State Department control, and in a White House eager to demonstrate that it was reinventing government. By 1999, as Secretary Gates put it, “the U.S. Information Agency was abolished as an independent entity, split into pieces, and many of its capabilities folded into a small corner of the State Department.”1
Today, the United States finds itself engaged in new ideological struggles against authoritarian populism and Islamist radicalism. Opinion surveys show that we are on the defensive and losing ground. While inherently unpopular policies are largely responsible, our failure to build bridges to other peoples has made matters worse. What we are doing is not working. Simply recreating the institutions of the past is unlikely to make matters better, but neither will simply adding people and money to today’s flawed structures.
Our public diplomacy will remain weak as long as it is subordinated to the State Department’s traditional concerns—a fact that leading conservatives are readier to acknowledge than are most liberals. To give public diplomacy the clout it needs, we should create a new cabinet-level Department of Global Information and Communications (DGIC) and back it with the resources it would need to succeed. Its functions would include: training public diplomacy officers for embassies and consulates around the world; offering media and communications training for State Department officials and those other agencies that represent the United States abroad; jump-starting the study of critical foreign languages through a new National Security Languages Initiative; bolstering area studies, including creating new interdisciplinary centers and convening high-level conferences; sponsoring and conducting ongoing survey research on public opinion abroad; assuming responsibility for international broadcasting beyond pure news; expanding vital people-to-people programs, including exchanges of scholars, students and cultural institutions, expert American speakers abroad and English-language teaching; and launching a massive new translation program, the “American Knowledge Library Initiative”, designed to make the best of our thought and culture available abroad in critical foreign languages.
The DGIC would assume a significant role within the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy. For example, its representative would be at the table during interagency deputies’ meetings, articulating the consequences of policy options for our standing in the world. As the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Muslim and Arab World argued in 2003,
while the United States cannot and should not simply change its policies to suit public opinion abroad, we must use the tools of public diplomacy to assess the likely effectiveness of particular policies. Without such assessment, our policies could produce unintended consequences that do not serve our interests.

In addition, a senior official of the DGIC would chair an interagency Policy Coordination Council on public diplomacy, with representation from the State Department, USAID, Defense and Commerce, among others.
(End Excerpts)

1. Gates, Landon Lecture, Kansas State University, November 26, 2007.

About the Author:
William A. Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he holds the Ezra Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies.

My PD Blog: Two Hopeful Signs

My PD Blog: Two Hopeful Signs

Two Hopeful Signs

Two Hopeful Signs Among All the Gloom Over Public Diplomacy

In the past couple of days two hopeful harbingers of better times ahead for public diplomacy took my eye. The first was Senator Lugar’s wonderfully lucid and much needed statement on the importance of American Cultural and Information Centers as a means to engage the world in a meaningful dialogue. If you have not read Senator Lugar Foreign Policy piece you should. Here is a link: http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/26/to_win_hearts_and_minds_get_back_in_the_game

The other hopeful words were expressed by one of America’s finest diplomats, Career Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering,. In a statement before a Congressional Committee, Pickering called for a doubling of funding for America’s exchange programs and with good reason—they work! Even more important perhaps, his assertion that we either “pay now or pay later” for the rebuilding of our diplomatic corps was supported by both Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Ranking Member Kay Granger (R-TX).

Imagine—a legendary U.S. Senator with expertise in foreign affairs and a long-time much-admired State Department diplomat come forward in the same week with well thought out, logical and important statements on how we can help to restore American public diplomacy to make it an effective component of American national security. My head is spinning! Perhaps now someone famous might just propose that we resurrect USIA or its 21st century equivalent to make the picture complete. Perhaps there is hope for “change we can believe in” after all.

My PD Blog: THE WHITE OAK RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

My PD Blog: THE WHITE OAK RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

THE WHITE OAK RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

If you haven't read the White Oak Recommendations, you should do so at an early opportunity.  I've appended a link below to the Recommendations and a list of those individuals who generated them.   Most of the members of the White Oak group are known to me and they are serious people committed to improving American public diplomacy.  Indeed we agree on 90 percent or more of what is recommended. 

The recommendations are not exactly a great surprise or a departure from conventional wisdom and with the seventy or so people gathered around "the White Oak table", so to speak, it would be remarkable to gain an agreement on anything but the conventional.  And while I do agree with nearly all of what was listed in the recommendations (after all, a quick reading of them might strike anyone as a perfectly reasonable approach) I do get the feeling that there was an element of group think at play here.  

Nearly all of the participants are on record as solid Obama supporters, politically center-left and avowed Democrats.   Nothing wrong with that although I think that any conversation about public diplomacy benefits from a diversity of political or ideological views as well as a diversity of organizational backgrounds.   But because of this political uniformity it may have been more important to the participants to show unity rather than risk creativity which might have caused some to go in different directions and produce a messier set of recommendations to the administration and the Congress.   

On the recommendations, there are two elements with which I do not agree.  Indeed it will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with my writings that I would take issue with two of the recommendations.  The first begins with the "self-evident truth" that "Re-fighting old battles over the consolidation of public diplomacy is neither feasible nor productive at this time."  If not now, when?  Other than the State Department and perhaps the ghost of Jessie Helms, is there anyone who would fight to keep public diplomacy in the Department where it has been so disfunctional for the past decade?  People have used the lame excuse that restructuring public diplomacy is in the "too hard to do" box or have claimed that it would distract from the urgent business of doing public diplomacy.  When this argument is seen for what it is, then budget is raised as though a return to an independent public diplomacy agency would somehow cost more than the bloated bureaucracy of State or DoD. When USIA thrived it had a lean and non-partisan structure and there is no reason why a lean and non-partisan structure cannot be put in place today.  

The second point of disagreement between my colleagues at White Oak and this commentator is over the coordination of public diplomacy.  As the White Oak group acknowledges, it is unlikely that an Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy could serve as the "coordinator" for public diplomacy among the many forces within and outside the government that have an input into American public diplomacy.  Their "solution" is to create another Senior Director position at the National Security Council on a permanent or temporary basis to "fix" the coordination problem.  Public Diplomacy is a highly operational profession and I question why the NSC should be placed in the middle of operations--the last time that happened we had the Iran-Contra scandal.  

There is a better way to operate public diplomacy and a better way to coordinate public diplomacy in my view.   If you want to know more, see the link below to an article I wrote on these issues in March 2008.   Kudos to the White Oak group--they got it 90 percent right.  

Links:  http://mountainrunner.us/files/whiteoak/The_White_Oak_Recommendations_onPublc_Diplomacy.pdf

 http://mountainrunner.us/files/whiteoak/The_White_Oak_Recommendations_Endorsement_List.pdf

 http://www.pdworldwide.com/Services.html

State Department Reorganization

Reorganization of the Public Diplomacy function at the State Department is a necessary first step and something that can be done immediately without legislation.   But make no mistake--it is not enough to remedy the situation.  Public Diplomacy needs centralized coordination, a new operational agency and a reenergized  mission with the funding  commensurate to its importance to our national security and foreign policy goals.   The following proposal by four retired USIA officers is just this sort of first step on the road to reforming our Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century.  The next steps will involve both the Administration and the Congress as the future must be grounded in legislation to bring a central role to public diplomacy with interagency coordination within the Office of the Presidency and a new independent operational agency, including the broadcasting elements.  The outline of that plan may be seen in my article "Humpty Dumpty Redux."   In the meantime read the following proposal for reorganization of PD in State:

MAKING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY EFFECTIVE

Crippled State Department Public Diplomacy Must be Restructured

Introduction: Recent overseas polls show that support for the United States is continues low and that our once high credibility is badly tarnished. American values are misunderstood and we seem to have lost the moorings by which we were formerly judged and envied. Public diplomacy (PD ) which is not public relations is based on dialogue, listening, learning and then intelligent discussion and hopefully, persuasion. We have allowed our outreach instrument of PD to loose effectiveness. Best practices of the former USIA have been set aside. Restructuring the instrument within State is essential.

Summary: Public Diplomacy (PD), a key instrument of foreign policy, can promote a favorable climate of public opinion in important countries if it is credible, flexible, adequately resourced and proactive. Disagreement with US foreign policy, actions and military engagements hurts is severely with overseas audiences. Yet a robust PD activity can build credibility in individual countries and continued support for the essence of America. Most PD discussion today ignores a basic obstacle which is the fragmented PD structure within State. Today, due to its illogical configuration, it is far from being an effective instrument of foreign affairs. Some field initiatives are acted upon by Washington PD components while others may languish or depend on the fading “old boy network” for response. Reallocation of resources is slow or not acted upon.

Communication with country audiences, both field-driven and Washington-driven, must be supported by a Washington process that is clearly defined and responsive, providing up-and-down linkage to the field from the Under Secretary for PD & PA (R) to the PAOs and may involve International Information Programs (IIP) and Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Five Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) have been critically hobbled by the PD organization although the penultimate one tweaked it somewhat but did not address the core problem. The latest one has made little impact.

Foreign policy control and PD input should remain in the regional bureaus and be responsive to their requirements while overseeing policy application to PD activities. Recognizing this, recommended restructuring includes establishing an A/S for Field PD-Coordinator along with adequate geographic, executive, administrative staffs. This position would answer to the Under Secretary -R- to oversee and coordinate the PD process related to the field. A new geographic staff, largely drawn from the existing PD units in the regional bureaus, would possess country expertise and advise on and provide support to all programming - what will work, cultural barriers, etc. The “nuts and bolts” of PD program support would fall to these new “desk” officers removing this responsibility from the regional bureaus. One or more senior PD officers would remain in each regional bureau to provide policy coordination and input. R through the new A/S should have input into PD training, assignments and field programs.

Page 2

PAO evaluations, now done by chiefs of missions, should have contributions by the new A/S input from the PD officer(s) in the regional bureaus. End Summary

Public Diplomacy (PD), appropriately funded and pulsed by a synergy of components directed by experienced PD officers, can be a powerful and important instrument in gaining understanding if not support for America’s objectives, domestic and foreign. To be effective, PD should be proactive in activity planning, nimble, and flexible with its resources. It must avoid getting mired in State’s hierarchical, reactive environment but shaped by individual country objectives – herein is an oil and water cultural contrast. PD leadership must be acutely tuned to and supportive of PD initiatives, both field and Washington, and provide overall guidance, direction and resource support.

Core philosophy of effective PD is based on communication dialogue (not

monologue) with foreign opinion leaders. (This is a major difference between PD and PR.) Listening and learning (in the local language) followed by convincing discussion are essential. The climate of public opinion can only be influenced if the PD conveyors in the field have achieved credibility. Field posts are essential to our communication..

PD Field posts and PAOs are directed by the US ambassadors while supplied with policy guidance from Washington as they were by USIA. To be successful, support from Washington for field initiatives must be rapid and coordinated with appropriate PD components in the Department. All PD officers in the field and in Washington should have a clear understanding of which Washington offices and officers are responsible for supporting each field program. All must have an open channel to the top PD leadership in the Department. Geographic and country expertise must be instantly available to advise PD leadership (R) which initiatives will work and won’t work and to make program recommendations. Adjusting resources and budget re-allocations must become more flexible and faster in application.

Several self-imposed conditions now restrict successful PD.

Funding and outreach. Current funding and outreach of PD field programs severely limit effectiveness of our PD efforts country by country and especially in the crucial geographic areas spotlighted in the aftermath of 9/11. Shortage of resources to re-open high tech libraries/information centers, branch posts, pursue other outreach programs and restore appropriate country levels of PD personnel prove crippling. Even if budgets and PD personnel are significantly increased, there is wide recognition that the machinery of our current PD operations within the State Department requires transformation. President Bush and Congressional leaders have asked, “Why are our messages not convincing?” Central to this problem is the PD structure within State.

Page 3

Foreign Policy. Assistant secretaries in the regional bureaus must control policy

in their areas. This is a given. PD activities both in Washington and the

field lead from this policy and should be positioned to contribute to policy creation and application. When USIA was merged into State, it was expected that by placing the former “Area Offices” of USIA into the regional bureaus, policy and geographic

expertise would meld into efficient support for field initiatives and strengthen Washington-driven initiatives. Unfortunately, this expectation did not materialize appropriately, even after more than eight years of effort and experience.

In 1999, Congress assigned overall PD responsibility to a new position, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R). However, this mandate did not provide corresponding specific authority to manage all PD within the Department and PD field operations. R encounters obstacles to effective PD support which include (a) chain of command down to and up from the field and (b) “authority” to support that responsibility. R lacks authority over most PD personnel, resources and field programs.

1. PD field initiatives are sent to the Department for support and program guidance. Frequently, the communications end up in the regional bureaus and may or may not be assigned to the PD officers in those bureaus for action. Sometimes those field

requests are lost in the bureaucracy. Or after being vetted by a “DAS,” who may or may not know genuine PD, those field requests are specifically assigned to the PD officers within the regional bureaus who work to support them but must resort to the “old boy network” of former USIA colleagues in other PD components to fulfill them. Dealings with the PD field posts by regional PD officers are sometimes “ad hoc.” Confusion and frustration by PD officers in the field and in the regional bureaus may arise due to vague lines of responsibility. Older officers with USIA experience know that a more efficient and workable process is doable. Bottom line – Current structure limits PD effectiveness.

2. At the same time, PD officers in the regional bureaus do not control field programs (although they provide some resources) and have little authority over PD officers in the field. Direct linkage coupled with authority is not there.

3. Field PD officers have no defined and direct linkage to R who theoretically is their director. In reality they must deal and negotiate with the PD officers in the regional bureaus, the International Information Programs (IIP), the Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and other Department components. There is no overall coordinator for PD field programs.

4. R’s position as Under Secretary precludes this officer from having a geographic staff to advise what PD efforts will work in a specific cultural environment, to monitor field initiatives and to provide program suggestions. Nor does s/he have the support of executive and administrative staffs to control all PD resources with flexibility and to move them where needed even though R has been assigned PD “earmarks”

Page 4

allocations by the Congress. An effective PD activity must be able to reallocate resources rapidly throughout the system. Department hierarchy dictates that only assistant secretaries can control programs, most of the resources and be operational. Currently the geographic expertise R so obviously needs is within the regional bureaus and is not immediately responsive to R. Missing also is direct linkage (read support to and control of field operations. Some limited efforts have been made to address these shortcomings, but the basic problems remain. Efficient use of the PD instrument is sharply curtailed if R does not have the authority and direct linkage to support and guide PD programs worldwide.

Recommendations:

1. Foreign policy oversight of PD operations must be continued by the regional assistant secretaries and their bureaus. A senior PD officer within those bureaus should advise and provide input into policy creation and execution. At the same time a realignment of the regional PD personnel to the Under Secretary “R” is required. See following:

A. Establish an Assistant Secretary - (Coordinator) for PD field Operations.

This officer is the sorely needed direct linkage between field posts and R, up and down. Provide that position with sufficient staff (formerly with the bureaus) - geographic, executive, administrative - to enable the incumbent to support and coordinate PD programs initiated by the Department and the field. Assist/advise R with his/her responsibilities.

B. Within each regional bureau combine both PD and PA into an Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, headed by a senior PD officer.

Each office director would have a deputy for PA (with necessary staff) to handle PA requirements. Both PD director and PA deputy would participate in policy formulation and application under the direction of the regional A/S and DAS’s. Concomitantly, the PD office director would be responsible for coordinating policy guidance with their counterparts in the new PD geographic offices, IIP and ECA.

The above reorganization recommends transferring most of the PD geographic officers from the regional bureaus and International Organizations (IO) and forming counterpart geographic offices, each under an Area PD office director who reports to the new A/S for PD Field Operations - (Coordinator). Those officers would in fact be “PD desk officers” and relieve regional bureau PD officers from the many details of both field and Washington PD activities. They would provide the all-important “missing link” to the field and to R while providing R and other PD elements the geographic expertise now absent. The regional PD officers and deputies, representing the regional Assistant Secretaries, would oversee policy implementation with the other PD components.

Page 5

Comment: “Tinkering” with the present PD operations within State side-steps addressing the major reform required. Making a PD officer within each regional bureau a DAS for PD is not the solution. Such evades the linkage and field support issues. PD must be accepted within the Department as a valuable foreign policy instrument and make the important changes to its operation as recommended above. The eight year experiment is chugging along, once an eight cylinder machine but now operating on four. Painting the car and attaching catchy (PR) bumper stickers may seem important. That is “tweaking”. But essential to improving the engine (PD process) is to re-connect all of the vital spark plugs.

There are other areas within the Department requiring important PD leadership from R and adjustments should follow. If the Department truly wants a more effective

PD operation, it must be prepared to support R in all responsibilities. They include PD training, PD assignments, budget control and support to the A/S for PD Field Operations - (Coordinator). The first big advance to promote more effective PD in our overseas outreach is to reconnect the PD machinery within the Department of State.

Recently, even more harmful to an effective PD process is the current movement within State to embed the PD professionals into State’s desk offices. This will dilute the PD process even more.

Double-hatting a DAS within each regional bureau to oversee PD activities and answer to R will only make field support more layered The all important field posts require a clear structure in Washington to support field initiatives in all aspects of PD operations. A DAS would only have a dotted line relationship with the field posts as well as PD components in Washington. PAOs require direct connections with R via an Assistant Secretary for PD Field Operations.

Compiled and edited by:

Fred A. Coffey, Jr. /FSO (Ret.) 703-827-2254

Ambassador William Rugh /FSO (Ret.) 301-929-5141

Stan Silverman/Former Comptroller of USIA 703-536-7332

William Maurer /FSO (Ret.)703-250-1801

In consultation with many professional Foreign Service  Officers and ambassadors

January 23, 2009

Comment:   Kudos to these four dedicated professionals for putting this proposal "out there".  As I said in the introduction to this posting, this is a necessary first step.  These proposals could be put in place within a few weeks and would lead to an almost immediate and substantive improvement in how we conduct public diplomacy.  But the four authors must know as I do that this initial reform must also lead to the kind of major changes--legislative changes--that I and others who study this issue have called for and which will require a bipartisan approach and well crafted language to ensure the intent of the Congress is carried out by the new operational agency and the White House coordination entity that has been proposed in "Humpty Dumpty Redux."

John Updike RIP

I was saddened to learn of the death this week of one of America's greatest contemporary writers, John Updike.  Indeed it can be argued that he captured mid and late 20th century America better than anyone.  Our paths crossed a couple of times overseas--twice in Czechoslovakia in the mid 1980s (from which the autographed photo at left originates) and again later in that decade in Finland. During the Czech visits John Updike was able to advance Czech-American cultural relations in a variety of ways both official and not so official--more about this in a future post perhaps--and in Finland our meeting was rather serendipitous as he was on a promotion tour for a new book.  I regret that I only had a limited time to get to know this gifted writer and observer of humanity.  He used every bit of that observational skill in blending with his great imagination to create vivid depictions of very real yet fictional characters. Among the several things we had in common was his PA Dutch Country roots. Updike grew up in Shillington just outside Reading, PA while my childhood was spent in Lancaster County just a few miles to the south. He was besides being a remarkable writer, a genuine and warm human being with great strengths of humanity and compassion and a single-minded dedication to his art.  He was also a fun and interesting companion on our travels around Czechoslovakia under the communists and in Finland's capital city.  He will be missed.

Smith-Mundt Symposium Panel Three

Check out the transcript of Panel Three at the following site:

http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/transcripts/0113-smithmundtsymposium-panel3.pdf

Comments are welcome.